WA I594 Injunction filed

Here's the problem: the I-594 camp obviously had deep pockets, I'll wager that if NRA/SAF, whoever, decided to pump more money into a No campaign, the pro-594 side would have pumped even more money into their Yes campaign.

Anyone who thinks they can outspend Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Nick Hanneur when they unite, is simply dreaming.

bikemutt said:

Here's the problem: the I-594 camp obviously had deep pockets, I'll wager that if NRA/SAF, whoever, decided to pump more money into a No campaign, the pro-594 side would have pumped even more money into their Yes campaign.

Anyone who thinks they can outspend Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Nick Hanneur when they unite, is simply dreaming.

Click to expand...

+1

All the NRA had to do was read the initiative and see it was illegal under WA law (more than one subject), vague, and overreaching. Then sit back and let the anti-gun groups pour their money into something that isn't going to stick anyway.

I sorta think that's what SAF was doing- as I saw only a little effort from them to fight it. Really, if some out of state rich folks want to pump millions into our economy to push something that is doomed to failure, let them.

So not being a lawyer, I figure SAF will get the injunction for the most onerous portions of 594 to buy us a little time, and then seek to have it thrown out completely.

As an aside, I wouldn't whine and cry over UBC if it didn't apply to a buyer that had a WA CPL, IOW, if I want to sell you my pistol, and you already have a CPL, then the face-to-face sale is lawful. I know that might not be popular, but it's what I was already doing anyway.

As an aside, I wouldn't whine and cry over UBC if it didn't apply to a buyer that had a WA CPL, IOW, if I want to sell you my pistol, and you already have a CPL, then the face-to-face sale is lawful.

Click to expand...

As a note on this, why would having a CPL exclude you from the 10 day waiting period but not a transfer ? Maybe because they wanted to make sure all hand gun sales were registered with the state, it's the only reason I can see.

2bfree said:

As a note on this, why would having a CPL exclude you from the 10 day waiting period but not a transfer ? Maybe because they wanted to make sure all hand gun sales were registered with the state, it's the only reason I can see.

Click to expand...

Part of the "problem" is WA has one of the easiest to get concealed carry permits to obtain. Pretty much, as long as a person is not a felon or otherwise prohibited from firearm possession, the state "shall" issue the permit. No picture on the permit, no other prerequisites. I don't know if they even have a plan in place to retrieve a permit if the holder was to become ineligible to possess firearms. I'll venture to say a low-skilled forger could fabricate a WA CPL pretty easily.

So, just because some "slack" was cut by the State with respect to no waiting period, don't expect the same treatment from the Bloomberg crowd, ain't gonna happen. We are not dealing with idiots.

So, just because some "slack" was cut by the State with respect to no waiting period, don't expect the same treatment from the Bloomberg crowd, ain't gonna happen.

Click to expand...

The "slack" is part of 594, not the state. Before 594 yes there was no waiting period with your CPL and a 5 day wait without. After 594 they left the CPL no wait the same but changed the wait to 10 days without.

2bfree said:

The "slack" is part of 594, not the state. Before 594 yes there was no waiting period with your CPL and a 5 day wait without. After 594 they left the CPL no wait the same but changed the wait to 10 days without.

Click to expand...

well, we can both imagine who cut the slack, we'll know more when the slack is gone.

+1

All the NRA had to do was read the initiative and see it was illegal under WA law (more than one subject), vague, and overreaching. Then sit back and let the anti-gun groups pour their money into something that isn't going to stick anyway.

I sorta think that's what SAF was doing- as I saw only a little effort from them to fight it. Really, if some out of state rich folks want to pump millions into our economy to push something that is doomed to failure, let them.

So not being a lawyer, I figure SAF will get the injunction for the most onerous portions of 594 to buy us a little time, and then seek to have it thrown out completely.

As an aside, I wouldn't whine and cry over UBC if it didn't apply to a buyer that had a WA CPL, IOW, if I want to sell you my pistol, and you already have a CPL, then the face-to-face sale is lawful. I know that might not be popular, but it's what I was already doing anyway.
__________________
"When I cleaned up my diction, I had nothing left to say."

Click to expand...

That's exactly how I see it. It's what I was doing also. If a person has a CPL there really is no need for another BC. The state has already run a check once and that should be enough. DOL (they keep the records) could endorse your DL with your CPL and it could be scanned at any police station or sheriff's office for validity for a small fee.

So I-594 wasn't really about private sales to criminals. It was about creating an expensive, hellish nightmare for people who want to buy and transfer guns, nothing less.

I guess we'll see what 10 mil will buy you in the long run. It bought an initiative but it remains to be seen if the legislature and courts will let it stand. My guess is it won't. SAF could hire Alan Gura for less than 10 mil.

The cast of characters supporting 594 was not limited to dogmatic gun haters, there was also the victim groups who believe the existing system allowed dangerous people to gain easy access to weapons with which they could harm others.

Lets use domestic violence as the example here. Even if by operation of law a person could officially prevent someone from acquiring a gun, that is a court order which results in a NICS denial, what good is that if the same person can obtain a weapon without a BG check?

Forcing all gun sales through a NICS check is the first step for these folks.

Two things

1) DO NOT blame the NRA. Blame was on the voters (gun owners) who did not turn out in force or mistakenly voted FOR I594 because the didn't bother to read all 18 pages. They regretted it after the fact

2) Leadcounsel is spot on...for the filing to be heard and to work you have to a) have standing b) show harm caused c) how that harm differed from intent - harming the innocent in collective with those it meant to stop

what do I mean by C - a law designed to punish criminals but punishes the innocent to do so - I am sure I am not stating it correctly but the legal beagles here could better explain harm to a specific class

Anyway, if they had included BC on private sales, then they would need a group/class to show standing and harm - example - if gun shows were to lose a billion dollars a year, etc. Technically (I THINK) private owners could go forward as an impacted class but it might be a tough fight

I don't like the univeral background checks for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is it creates a de-facto registration, & isn't universal (criminals still won't do it... obviously).
The part that really bugs me though is that it turns normal practice into illegal activity. The brochure on 594 said that it included exemptions for immediate family members, loans for hunting & target shooting. the exemptions are so narrow, that they are basically worthless. the exemptions for family members is limited to immediate family members. the exemption for loans for hunting only applies if the owner will be with the person borrowing the firearm. meaning I can no longer loan my 7mm Mauser to a friend from work for is young son to use hunting unless I accompany them on the trip...
The exemption for shooting at a range is only valid at a "state recognized range." So if my friends and I want to go shooting somewhere other than a designated range, (like the 20 acres one friend has) we cannot shoot or handle each other's firearms...
I don't like any part of the law, but this part that turns standard practice into major crimes is CRAP.

here is a link to a good little write up on the Gotcha's of 594...
http://pscnet.net/politics/The Myths of I594.pdf

wish more of us washingtonians had done their research before voting...

Why are we allowed to vote away freedoms we have in some instances, in the name of security, and not others.
Suppose billionaires got together to regulate the influx of Muslims into a state.
Islam is an inherently violent belief as practiced by some. Thereby requiring
some,possibly total control of their immigration. Sounds absurd, of course,
by I still ask the question.

Here are a few other problems with 594 that no one talks about.

I 594 has also made the 03 C&R an utterly useless license. Even if you have a C&R, you still need a background check to buy an eligible firearm now....

Black powder guns now need a background check.

594 redefined what an "antique" firearm is.

"Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not
designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire
ignition
with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898,
including
any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap,
or similar type
of
ignition
system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition
manufactured
in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer
manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the
ordinary channels of commercial trade

Click to expand...

594 also redefined what a "gun" is... Any internal combustion engine is now a gun, if you use the literal definition from the Initiative.

Posted on THR's legal forum with subject: "Here's Comes The New Firearm Legislation 2015 Version" at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=767752 It's only "Proposed Legislation", but cuts right to heart of the misguided I-594.

dc dalton said:

New today:
...
Washington HB1245 would repeal background check provisions for gun sales and transfers relating to initiative 594

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Washington-Gun-Law-HB1245/State-Law/27182 ...

Click to expand...

data missing

It does have sponsors.. Primary is rep Mike Shea

Besides another ballot initiative, what is the legislative process for repealing I-594? Can it be repealed with a traditional bill?

How does the law not violate the state's constitution? They use the word "impaired" which I find odd and likely to have a (non-dictionary) legal definition.

Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Click to expand...

The answer is...

Yes, it can be repealed with a bill however; in the first two years of the law, it requires a supermajority as opposed to just a majority. so the task at hand is harder because you really have to work to get the support needed. We are working on it

In the meantime, could the AG put out a legal opinion that I594 is in conflict with the state constitution?

There are several bills, both already proposed and pending, that deal with MOST of 594. what we will NOT get out of the legislature is a total repeal.

The vast majority support BGC for sales, period. The legislature is not going to tell the entire state to kiss off. I don't LIKE that fact, but it IS fact.

594 goes so far beyond BGC though, that the whole thing may run afoul of federal law.

594 literally makes holding a gun safety course a felony. And it's so vaguely worded that not a single prosecuting attorney in the state has pledged to uphold it.

We have a pretty good shot at undoin this monstrosity. But the bad news is that a smarter effort, more narrowly targetted and defined, could come to any state and stick.

Arguing against UBC is a hard position to defend when 99% of the voting public is uneducated about the issue and the ads talk about lunatics buying guns from gun shows. Sometimes being right doesn't help when it comes to politics.